End of the Line

So, here we are at the end of this blog. What have I learned? To be perfectly honest, in the context of the actual debate itself, my opinions haven’t changed. I started this blog with the opinion that creationism is pseudo-science, and I’ll be ending it on the same notion. However, my position is not the result of blind bias—I think that I’ve demonstrated in my blog rational thinking and honest inquiry, and not blind dogmatism to an ideal. Additionally, I feel like in the process of writing this blog I’ve gained a better perspective on the opposite side of the debate; I feel as if I better understand creationist motivations, arguments, and such.

Regardless, I’ll examine my line of thinking in creating this blog; my first order of business was presenting a clear definition of what science should be considered; I understand that this was not a post immediately entrenched in the educational aspect of the controversy, but it was nonetheless of tantamount importance; without an understanding of science and the concepts of falsifiability and experimentation, I would not have much of a solid foundation of which to build my arguments against creationism in the classroom. The next two posts were spent utilizing this criteria; I began discussing exactly how creationism fails to meet the standards of actual science, and how its religious nature makes it unsuitable for the classroom. It is here that I managed to narrow down the thematic focus of the blog; instead of discussing solely the science behind evolution and the lack of evidence for creationism, I focused my efforts on why creationism shouldn’t have a place in education and what it means to leave it out.

I subsequently discussed the Scopes Trial, an infamous event that changed public perceptions of the debate. By discussing such a historical event in the debate, I feel as if I gave more insight on the argument; after all, it was the Scopes trial that initially highlighted the divisiveness of this issue that still persists today, as well as the way that the general public tends to view this controversy. I also examined the attitudes that tend to inform creationist notions and arguments, such as a persecution complex; in exploring motivations I feel as if I gained more perspective on the opposing side of the debate.

Afterward I provided a brief exposition as to the role of creationism in another continent, namely Europe. I think it helps to put our country’s situation in context when you compare it to the way other countries deal with creationism and evolution, which is why I wanted to discuss how Europe tends to view the debate and why they view it in that certain way. And finally, I discussed my own experiences in having been taught creationism—such a reflection served as an affirmation for my own thoughts on the subject, namely the way that creationism would be toxic in the public classroom.

Like I mentioned, I feel that my main area of growth has been in understanding the creationist position in a more nuanced way than I had previously; I examined their motivations and ideals in a way that I had not previously done before, and I think I’ve come out of the experience better-equipped to discuss the issue on a political level—knowing what informs them and motivates them to make their attacks and claims is very important to me.

As far as creating an argument goes, my understanding of the way creationists tend to structure their arguments lends me the clarity to know what not to do. I’ve attempted to keep my arguments as rational and evidence-based as possible, without relying on the straw-men or misconceptions that tend to populate the other position's arguments. I’ve always valued lucidity in arguments over deception, and I think this blog has definitely demonstrated to me the importance of refuting a claim as opposed to simply attacking it. And on that note I’d like to end this blog with an Arthur Conan Doyle quote: “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

First-hand Account of Creationism in the Classroom

I’d like to make this post a bit more personal than my previous ones. My high school years were spent in a private school that taught creationism as the true scientific (and spiritual) explanation of the origins of species, so I was first-hand exposed to the type of education that creationists are trying to place into public schools. As you can imagine, my experience being taught creationism in lieu of evolution has had a profound effect on the way I view this topic; however, I will point out that my views are subject to misinformed bias; I have considered both sides of the debate and my conclusions are based on what I think are rational arguments. Nevertheless, I hope I’ll be able to instill some insight as to just how ludicrous the notion of teaching creationism in public schools really is.

In my sophomore biology class, a large portion of the textbook was designed as an attack on evolution. It set up an impossibly vast variety of straw-men arguments, such as the claim that evolution is the claim that life came from non-life (that would be abiogenesis, and the phrase “origin of life” in the context of evolution is interchangeable with “origin of species”) or the claim that the second law of thermodynamics definitely disproves evolution (it certainly doesn’t do that). The central point that I am trying to get across is that no one in my school who believed in creationism had a clear understanding of what evolution actually entails; for example, they believed that evolution taught that humans are descended from apes, while we merely share a common ancestor.

Unfortunately, the one common factor that seems to inform creationist arguments against evolution is ignorance; neither my teachers nor my classmates had bothered to critically review evidence for evolution in a truly analytical light—they simply brushed any inconsistencies in their creationist views under the rug and would dodge questions that I raised concerning their arguments. It is precisely this type of attitude that creationism perpetrates—a general apathy toward empirical scientific knowledge, as well as an acceptance of dogmatic arguments with no basis. This is why I think it’s so important that we dispel popular misconceptions of evolution, so that we leave behind the intellectual shackles of creationism and simply move on.

UPDATE: One of these days I'll remember to form actual paragraphs on the first go.

Implications of an Unresolved Debate

The two sides of this debate are heavily polarized. I’ve already theorized possible ways to end the debate, with a focus on educating the general public on evolution and of the debate itself. But what lies in store if the debate remains unsolved? I am of the opinion that general science education in America will suffer if steps aren’t taken to “close” the debate on a sufficient enough level, and that on a larger scale the civil rights of students could be threatened.

I’m relatively certain that over the course of this blog I’ve sufficiently stressed the fact that creationism is non-scientific. Creationism is the antithesis of actual science—it first asserts a conclusion and tries to find evidence afterward, never deviating from the conclusion. Though it is not being taught in the majority of the states, its lingering presence in the public consciousness is potentially problematic; every young student who evolutionary theory has devalued in their eyes and creationism championed stands to lose much of the critical thinking ability required in today’s job and research market; we'd essentially be dumbing down these students by teaching creationism as science. Additionally, science education itself will inevitably suffer if solid concepts such as evolutionary theory are continually blasted by misguided attacks. If steps aren’t taken to further reduce its role in schools, the problem could potentially get worse, with creationist proponents adding more to their ranks. Though I do not envision any sort of creationist uprising anytime soon, leaving this controversy unresolved will definitely have an adverse affect on science education.

Another implication, even more unsettling than the first, is the issue of civil rights. If this matter isn’t settled in a decisive manner, there will always be creationist proponents pushing their origin story into the public school setting; the matter here is that there will be continual attacks on the civil rights of public school students; I say this because being fundamentally religious at its core, creationism would be imposing a belief system on students it has no right proselytizing toward.

Keeping in mind my post about ending the debate, I argue that leaving this controversy up for grabs, so to speak, will not only harm the level of science education in our country, but also allow for continued attacks on civil rights to be unaccounted for; and this is not considering the consequences if creationism actually gained more favor among the public, merely what would happen if the debate in its current state is left unresolved. A stronger creationist movement would carry much more dire consequences, indeed.

UPDATE: Edited for formatting errors.

Reading List

Here are some sites that I find indispensable when researching this controversy:

TalkOrigins Archive
This site, in my opinion, is the single most valuable resource one could have handy when researching this debate. An archive of a still-active usenet group, there is such a wealth of information about nearly every single facet of the evolution/creationism controversy. It’s almost unreal how much information is in the archive; it provides comprehensive evidence for evolution from biological and geologic standpoints, refutes moral, philosophical, and theological attacks on evolution, and has countless articles detailing common creationist misconceptions of evolution. Every post and article on the site is informed by rational, unbiased arguments; clear scientific backing is provided when needed, and arguments are never made to attack straw-men.

EvolutionBlog
A great blog for reading about current happenings in the debate, Jason Rosenhouse provides good commentary on relevant news items. As Rosenhouse is an ardent defender of evolution, reading the blog gives a better sense of how a general scientist would view the debate; in addition to commentary on news of the debate, Rosenhouse reviews relevant books and keeps readers updated on biological happenings. I recommend this site for keeping up with the actual issue and staying relevant, it’s hardly technical to the point of incomprehensibility; on the contrary, it’s usually a rather entertaining blog to follow.

Answers in Genesis
I think that evaluation of both sides of this debate is of importance: that’s why I’m recommending the home site run by Answers in Genesis, one of the biggest creationist groups out there. An excellent directory of creationist claims and attacks on evolution from their point of view, I challenge the reader to research their claims and compare the arguments presented here with arguments presented in the TalkOrigins archive; I think that research on the subject is critical to understanding its importance.

Understanding Evolution: History, Theory, Evidence, and Implications
As what would probably be classified as an essay, this is a rather long read. But it’s definitely worth checking out; R.G. Price writes on the history of evolutionary thought, the initial reactions against Darwin’s theories, how mythological creation stories inform creationism, and more. A comprehensive essay in every sense of the word, valuable insight on evolution can be gained from reading this, especially in regards to its historical origins. As this essay demonstrates, evolutionary thought goes back much farther than Darwin.

PBS on Evolution
In addition to TalkOrigins, PBS’ site on evolution is a fantastic, comprehensive resource on the subject; however, what separates PBS from TalkOrigins is their reliance on video. So while many of the same ideas are communicated, PBS happens to present a multitude of informational videos via a very intuitive interface split between the different areas of inquiry concerning evolution, from Darwin himself to the role of mating in evolution.

Intelligentdesign.org
In the same vein as Answers in Genesis, this site serves to defend intelligent design. Once again, I provide this site not to give it any sort of veracity; I simply believe that one must learn about the different positions in the debate in order to have significant insight on it. And as intelligent design is merely a more nuanced position of creationism, it’s worth it to check out what “design proponents” have to say so that sufficient research can be done on their claims.

The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online
Exactly what it says on the tin; a collection of all of Darwin’s works, including his seminal book, On the Origin of Species. I don’t expect anyone to rush to read all of his various essays and books on evolution, but looking at the original work from which modern evolutionary theory has sprung definitely places the importance of Darwin’s ideas in context, and it is precisely for that reason that I recommend this site.

UMKC School of Law Scopes Trial Site
Not too easy on the eyes, but this site does an excellent job of explaining, reviewing, and analyzing the infamous Scopes Trial. It’s a very comprehensive site, and has a wealth of information about the trial; in addition to excerpts from the manuscript of the trial, it includes accounts of the trial from H.L. Mencken and others, biographies, and even the original textbook which John Scopes taught evolution from. I’ve already discussed how important it is to understand Scopes, and in doing so this site is invaluable.

BibleGateway: Genesis 1-2
For my final link, I’d like to refer to the book of Genesis, chapters one and two; the book itself is obviously not site-specific, but the actual website is irrelevant; one must read the biblical account of creation given in Genesis in order to have a good understanding of the creationist position; this is what they base their beliefs on the origin of species on, and the entirety of the creation process is covered in these two chapters, from the creation of the cosmos to the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib. BibleGateway serves only the purpose of providing the original King James text, so it’s really the first two chapters of Genesis that I find important here.

Creationism in Europe: A Brief Look

The United States and Europe have very different views about creationism and evolution. Take a look at this blog post, for example. The United States are near the bottom in terms of belief in biological evolution, while a large amount of European countries are at the top. I find such statistics to be very interesting, especially when you take into context European attitudes toward teaching creationism: the Council of Europe, a group dedicated to democratic freedom and similar ideals, released a resolution in 2007 citing the dangers of teaching creationism. The resolution is congruent with what I’ve been blogging about; they don’t consider any form of creationism to be science and are of the opinion that teaching it in the classroom as science is dangerous.

But it’s important to consider that such a resolution, while a good indicator of the overall attitude of European countries has toward evolution, is hardly a definitive statement that encompasses every country’s attitude toward evolution. For example, a surprising amount of British schoolteachers think that creationism should at least be discussed in the classroom. So while Europe does seem to have a better grasp on the issue than America, creationism still has a presence.

I think that the question should be raised: what about Europe gives it more of a stance against creationism than America? I think an important factor is the secularization of Europe. In my opinion, the relative separation of church and state lends Europe a greater scientific leaning. Such an analysis would have to take into account a lot of variables, but I do think one constant remains between both America and Europe: the creationists are in the same vein, with the same arguments. In order to better deal with this debate in America, we should distance our government and legislature, and by proxy our public education, from any religious authority or thought.

Blogs You Should Read

The Media Made Me Do It

With a rare sort of enthusiastic attitude, the author here discusses the impact that the media has on our decisions. While many of us tend to simply dismiss the topic of media and advertising influence based on our own preconceived notions, reading through this blog demonstrates that the issue is not nearly as unimportant as we think it is; the specific impact of the topic is explored through ruminations on identity and its connection to media influence, the different facets of advertising, and more, all while keeping a very relatable tone and providing many examples from contemporary pop culture. The insightfulness of the blog (I direct you to the post on the devaluing of identity in soldiers as a good example) coupled with its approachable tone (the author sounds less like a lecturer and more like some sort of well-informed radio host) makes it a must-read blog.

Dark Matter

I have a good bit of respect for this blog, tackling a slightly obscure scientific controversy, dark matter, and succeeding in making it interesting to the average person uninterested in such scientific controversies. Much like the subject matter of the above blog, dark matter isn’t a topic that people tend to place much stock in—mainly because the vast majority of people are unaware of its existence. But I honestly think that the author does a great job of explaining the oftentimes alienating terms related to dark matter in a way that enables readers to get a grasp on the subject matter. For me, the defining aspect of this blog is the way that the blogger personally responds to almost every comment, always forming arguments on rational thoughts and providing evidence. I think that everyone should check out this blog because of the way it reflects its author’s commitment to the subject material and the way that the author guides us through what is usually seen as a topic outside of public scope.

Non-linear Perspectives

Non-linear perspectives is about the legalization of drugs—specifically, marijuana. The tone of this blog is almost in direct contrast with my other two picks: a very academic, intellectual, almost-professional tone is used for these posts in a way. The arguments found in this blog are almost impossibly well-crafted; it’s notable the way that the author tackles such a deeply divisive topic in a rational manner, analyzing the different ways that the argument can be contextualized. While the many proponents for marijuana legalization tend to make half-baked arguments (no pun intended), the author here goes above and beyond in researching why marijuana is so demonized by our government and society and why he thinks that it should be legalized. In summary, the excellent way in which the author handles the different arguments for marijuana legalization—social, moral, and more, along with the exhaustive research and evidence he places behind his well-reasoned and academic arguments makes this blog a great read.

Theorizing an End to the Debate

Evolution and creationism in American education is understandably a very controversial concept. But why is it so controversial? In the minds of the American public the ideas of evolution and creationism have come to represent the divide between science and religion, and the perception of a divide extends to those who take a stance on the debate: those who are proponents of evolution see creationism as irreconcilable with science, and perhaps even a danger to critical thinking; those who are proponents of creationism see evolution, and even the larger scientific institution, as attacks on their cultural and religious identity. These attitudes extend into the classroom, and the worries of both sides are as such more focused; in teaching evolution and ignoring creationism, are we eroding the religious values of a generation? Or are we endangering that same generation’s ability to think in scientific terms by teaching creationism?

The issue here isn’t the scientific validity of either creationism or evolution. Virtually the entire scientific majority agrees with the validity of evolutionary theory while classifying creationism as pseudo-science, and with good reason. Again, I point to falsifiability and the fact that science is used to describe natural phenomena. The issue is whether or not creationism should be taught in the classroom, and whether evolution should stay.

Perhaps what could bring an end to this divisive conflict is the subject matter itself—I’m talking about education. Many creationists have poor knowledge of what evolution actually is, and this plays a large part in their antipathy towards it. I think that popular misconceptions about evolution, such as equating it with abiogenesis or claiming it has no evidence, should be corrected in the public eye. If the public gained more insight into what is deceptively characterized as a simple hypothesis, the issue of having evolution in schools while excluding creationism would not be such an issue. Additionally, a better characterization of science would allow the general public to discern creationism as beyond science—the aim would not necessarily be to tell people what to believe, but to simply educate them on science to the point where they can make clear distinctions between evolution and creationism, and have them understand why only the former belongs in a public classroom.

I still stand by my stance of keeping creationism out of the classroom—but maybe only the science classroom. Perhaps in different contexts, it could be taught. Not as a viable scientific alternative to origins, no, but maybe as an example of a religious explanation for origins in a relevant class on theology or religion. Furthermore, classes on the controversy itself would be helpful in showing students the different roles that these two explanations have, and why it is important to distinguish between them in the way that this blog has been doing. The goal with such courses would not be to appease creationists, but to further education of the issue.

I understand that creationist beliefs are not something that can be surmounted so easily, especially in a country as religious as America, but the divisiveness of the issue can be subdued by a clearer presentation of what science and evolution is in the public eye, and by teaching about creationism and the controversy in purely religious and political terms, respectively.

Here’s an interesting but admittedly entertaining video that should set the following context into discussion (note the association of evolution with atheism, and the persecution complex that follows):



If you’ll recall my last post, I discussed how the infamous Scopes Trial informed creationists’ views on the issue: refusal to reconcile science with contradictory beliefs and appeals concerning unrelated areas such as morality. Here I’d like to talk about another very important aspect of the creationist point of view—the persecution complex. A persecution complex is common among creationists, especially those who are proponents of intelligent design.

In addition to sincere belief in the veracity of their claims (whether or not they recognize them as scientific), creationists have a tendency to appeal to fairness and other such non-scientific arguments. ‘After all’, they say, ‘shouldn’t both sides of the debate be taught’? This has been brought up in a few comments, and my response has been that creationism can’t be elevated to the same scientific status as evolution. This is a belief shared by many proponents of evolution, and it is beliefs such as these that get reactions from creationists claiming persecution.

I can think of no better example of such a persecution complex than Ben Stein’s Expelled, a relatively recent documentary that advocates intelligent design while smearing evolution. A good portion of the movie deals with the “atheistic scientific establishment” and its supposed war against intelligent design. Take a quick look at the movie’s site, and you’ll see how it appeals to emotion and sets up an attitude of persecution. The movie tries to set up intelligent design as a legitimate scientific theory, and reasons that “Big Science” is just avoiding progressive debate concerning alternative scientific theories of origin. An enticing view, but it’s important to keep in mind what science is— falsifiability and the like. I recommend watching the movie if at all possible, and then checking out Expelled: Exposed, an excellent site that debunks Expelled’s various attacks on evolutionary theory.

This persecution complex that informs many creationists beliefs on what should be taught in schools. The empty rhetoric that results from ideas such as “Teach the Controversy” and the idea of fairness for non-scientific doctrines such as creationism is dangerous to the public mindset. It’s misleading and I’d go as far to say even treacherous. A strong statement, I know, but such appeals only serve to mislead Americans about the value of legitimate science in education. The sort of dishonesty that informs the creationism, especially the intelligent design movement, is staggering at times. It’s true that scientists and the scientific establishment do not want intelligent design taught as a viable alternative theory, yes. But it’s not because they’re afraid of the consequences of losing or because they desperately want to cling to some sort of “atheistic worldview”, but because intelligent design (and by proxy, creationism) is not a legitimate form of science at all. To debate that using non-scientific arguments is simply dishonest.

What we can learn from Scopes

The 1925 Scopes Trial, commonly known as the Scopes Monkey Trial, was a ubiquitous event in the history of the creation/evolution issue—it had a huge amount of coverage, and subsequently influenced major changes in the American public’s perception of the controversy. I think that an examination of the trial and its consequences is necessary in order to properly put into context current attitudes about this topic.

A quick summary of the case: It was set up by the American Civil Liberties Union in order to challenge the Tennessee’s then-new Butler Act, which forbade the teaching of any theory that denied the Genesis account of creation or that stated that man had evolved from lower species. John Scopes, the eponymous defendant, was a high school biology teacher who volunteered for the position at the urging of town locals. The prosecution was headed by William Jennings Bryan, a three-time presidential candidate noted for his oratory and a devout Presbyterian; the defense was headed by Clarence Darrow, a famous lawyer and self-identified agnostic.

The focus on the trial was hardly on Scopes’ alleged crime; instead, the focus was largely on the validity of evolution and creationism, and the interaction between science and religion. Darrow’s tactics changed from challenging the law based on the freedom it gave teachers to attacking the foundation of the law—that is, a literal interpretation of the Bible. Darrow’s strategy culminated in a cross-examination of Bryan’s personal beliefs; he attacked his views on creation, Adam and Eve, and other Bible-related topics.

Scopes was ultimately found guilty of teaching evolution and fined. But to the eyes of the public, that was hardly relevant. The massive publicity the trial received propagated new attitudes toward the debate; I think that we’re all familiar with the assumed dichotomy between science and religion that’s so often presented. Darrow and Bryan’s deeply contrasting views on religion and science shaped the public’s belief in such a dichotomy, a belief that persists even today.

I think that the most important thing we can glean from knowledge of this trial is the way that creationists tend to view this debate; Bryan considered the Bible to be inerrant and refused to reconcile a conflicting scientific fact with his beliefs, something that all creationists are guilty of. Bryan also made frequent appeals based on irrelevant statements, claiming that evolution is a bad theory because of the way it degrades humans. When you contrast Bryan’s behavior with Darrow’s explicit attacks on religion and biblical inerrancy, you can see how many can view science and religion as irreconcilable points of view.

Analysis

The debate between proponents of creationism and defenders of evolution, two fundamentally different ways of viewing the origin of living organisms, has arguably been at its most divisive when placed in the context of education – a veritable culture war seems to be taking place between the conservative religious groups who want their say in the classroom and the scientists and skeptics who want to exclude what they perceive to be faith-based origin stories from being taught in schools.

Simply put, biological evolution; is described as changes in genetic material from one generation to the next over a long enough period, these changes accumulate and can cause changes in a species population and possibly birth a new species. From evolution comes the idea of common descent, the idea that all living organisms, including humans, originated from a single organism. In sharp contrast, creationism is the belief that everything, from the cosmos to life itself, was created in a supernatural manner by an equally supernatural being (usually characterized in the form of a religious deity, and in this context synonymous with the Judeo-Christian God). In the context of the debate, it is also the rejection of evolution and other scientific facts. Related to creationism is the idea of intelligent design, a movement which posits that due to the complexity of things found in the universe and in the world, an intelligent designer had to have created them. Intelligent design was developed as a way to present the idea of creation without direct religious language, though many proponents of intelligent design nonetheless believe the designer to be the Christian God.

Those opposed to the teaching of creationism and intelligent design contend that they are not legitimate sciences and relegate them to the realm of religious belief or pseudoscience, citing their lack of falsifiability of their claims; some equate teaching creationism and intelligent design to teaching that the earth is flat. The worry is that quality of education for students would suffer as a result of these religious challenges to evolution, and additionally that teaching creationism would directly violate the first amendment establishment clause in the Constitution. Proponents of creationism and intelligent design argue that their beliefs are scientific and true by nature, and that the acceptance of evolution is due to societal and ideological factors such as bias towards naturalism or against faith, and some claim that evolution is intrinsically a religion . In many cases they make the claim that their views are being excluded from schools because they are a legitimate threat to evolution, or that they are being persecuted by the current scientific institution.

The current movement seeks to give creationism and intelligent design time in the classroom alongside evolution, with many proponents of creationism and intelligent design arguing that schools should “Teach the Controversy”; instead of trying to directly remove evolutionary teachings from schools, as was attempted in the past, creationists and design advocates posit that both evolution and creationism/intelligent design should be taught from an equal standpoint, with the students deciding between the two. Their detractors say that the controversy is manufactured and merely a religious ploy.

The controversy is not solely a battle of scientific integrity— it is also a battle between politics and ideologies. The mission statements of Answers in Genesis (a leading proponent of Young Earth Creationism) and the Discovery Institute (a major force behind intelligent design) both reveal ideological backings to their respective causes. Likewise, those who support creationism will often argue that evolution is bad for society and morality, and that it also has an atheistic bias. While naturalistic in nature, science does not seek to disprove religious faith; in fact, it cannot prove or disprove supernatural claims. Nonetheless, the incompatibility of some personal beliefs with science has led many religious groups to embrace creationism and intelligent design, as they view evolution and other scientific principles as a threat to their faith and representative of an opposing worldview.

In analyzing the issue, all of the components of this debate must be taken into account: on a surface level, the battle is simply between the scientific integrity of two different explanations for the origins of life; but on a deeper level, the politics and ideologies that back these respective explanations illustrate the conflict between science and faith in our society, and the way that it affects education. With concepts such as the separation of church and state held in such high regard in our society, it is necessary that we view origin explanations such as creationism in a highly critical light.
Though in recent years there have been many large losses for creationism in the courts and in public school systems, its proponents continue to push forward. They continue to distort what science is and appeal to moral or ethical claims and various straw-men arguments. Their arguments are never purely scientific in nature, relying on misinterpretation and misinformation to win followers. With no scientific or factual basis to stand on, creationism is a view that cannot be taught in the classroom; giving it time in schools would weaken scientific education in our country due to its attack on legitimate science, especially scientific principles as important as evolution. Creationism isn’t necessarily a threat to evolution itself, but to the public perception of science and scientific facts and theories. Furthermore, the creationism politically strives to place religion in the classroom, a violation of the constitution and the principle of the separation of church and state.

What Creationism is and Why it Doesn't Belong in the Classroom, Pt. 2

Despite its lack of scientific authenticity, creationism and intelligent design still have a large amount of proponents who continuously push and lobby for their inclusion in the classroom. I don’t think the movement has much ground to stand on; after all, what legitimate reason is there for something entirely faith-based to be taught in public schools as a legitimate alternative to a time-tested scientific body of facts? I think that the backlash against the teaching of evolution in schools is something that is entirely bred by misinformation and misunderstanding of not only what science is, but also what should be taught in schools.

The specifics of what should be included in education is a vast, comprehensive subject in and of itself; another blog for another time. But I definitely think that legitimate science is something that should be taught in schools and that religious ideas should be kept out, especially when they are taught alongside legitimate scientific ideas and theories. I consider such a notion to be a violation of the separation of church and state, and so does the U.S. Supreme Court. That last bit may sound rather tangential, but it’s important to note that creationism and intelligent design are essentially religious in nature, being non-scientific explanations for origins that invoke creators and deities, and as such can have those kinds of criticisms levied against them.

Science is not a discipline that is subject to the whims of those who dislike its ideas; it’s a naturalistic, method-dependent way of testing and proving observable facts and phenomena in this world. It’s important that that is what is instilled in students and not the faith-based ideas behind creationism that serve a religious agenda.

UPDATE: Formatting correction, enjoy the paragraphs.

What Creationism is and Why it Doesn't Belong in the Classroom, Pt. 1

As you've most likely been taught in high school biology, biological evolution is the change of genetic material in a population of organisms from generation to generation. In a context more specific to the question of origins, universal common descent, a facet of evolutionary theory, is used to describe the origin of animals, including humans. First proposed by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species, universal common descent is, within the framework of evolution, the idea that all organisms evolved from a single common ancestor. Nothing you haven’t heard already. It’s important to note that the ideas presented by evolution do adhere to the principle of falsifiability and are supported by numerous amounts of paleontological, geological, genetic, and biological evidence. Additionally, evolutionary biology and numerous other scientific disciplines (such as genetics) have long been building off of Darwin’s theories in numerous ways.

Now, creationism offers a much more religious explanation for origins. Creationism is the belief that everything, including life and the universe, was created by a deity or deities. The creator usually takes the form of the Abrahamic deity but nevertheless can be described as a number of deities. Not very scientific (and I’ll get to that in a bit). But proponents of creationism claim that theirs is a legitimate belief and with this persecution complex strive to put their belief in schools. Now here’s the fun part: using my previous definition of science, we can see why creationism is not scientific in nature. I know that’s a pretty strong statement, and I hope that I won’t come across as some sort of hopelessly biased blogger fighting armies of creationist straw-men; I feel that there are legitimate reasons for discounting creationism as a science-based belief, and I also feel that as a non-scientific explanation for origins it has no place in the classroom.

In one of my previous posts, I explained how important it is that scientific hypotheses need to be falsifiable. If a hypothesis cannot be tested, then there is no sure way to elevate it beyond the realm of speculation. As it happens, the basic tenets of creationism are not predictions that are simply not able to be validated in the context of our natural world. There’s simply no way to test the vague, metaphysical processes that creationists claim were used by whichever deity or intelligent designer of their choosing. We can’t ground such ideas with the scientific method. Furthermore, creationism is a blatant inversion of the scientific method – instead of striving to test hypotheses in pursuit of facts, creationism presents its facts first and attempts to justify them later. That's about as far from actual science as you can get.

UPDATE: Formatting correction, enjoy the paragraphs.

What about Intelligent Design?

Supremely short post. I'm not sure how I managed to exclude the idea of intelligent design from this blog's description. Anyway, when reading keep in mind that I'll also be talking about intelligent design as well as creationism (as well as how they're related). So it's not solely going to be Evolution vs bona-fide Creationism.

So what exactly is "science", anyway?

Before I can establish the scientific basis for evolution and creationism, I should first establish a working definition of science. Dictionary.com defines science as “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” That seems like as good a definition as any, but I do feel as if a bit of elaboration is in order if we’re going to be talking about what is and is not considered science.
All right, let’s elaborate on that definition. Knowledge is familiarity or acquaintance with facts and truth, as you most likely know. So, what’s with the systematic part? Science is very much dependent on a method—the scientific method. And the scientific method involves, you guessed it, observation and experimentation. That means that scientists have to set up tests or trials in a controlled setting in order to observe the way things work and in order to prove their hypotheses. Without experimentation and observation, scientists wouldn’t have any sort of reliable account of the natural phenomena that exists in our world. And the system of the scientific method is very much reliable—after all, it’s an integral component of science itself.
So, observation and experimentation: that’s how we go about performing science. So, what exactly is scientifically knowable? What can be scientifically knowable will be a recurring theme once I start describing the different positions I’ll be covering. An important aspect of science is that it can only validate or invalidate hypotheses and theses that are falsifiable. In this context, when a hypothesis is falsifiable doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s false, but it does mean that if the hypothesis happens to false that it can be proved false through the scientific method.
Well, that’s a simple exposition into what science is what it can cover. For my current purposes, this will suffice. In the future as more issues concerning the nature of science and non-science come up, I’ll be sure to cover them.

Hello, world!

The question of origins is one of incredible importance and relevancy in our modern-day society. After all, what we believe about the origins of our species has a profound influence on our attitudes concerning a number of different topics, but more importantly it frames our attitudes about science, religion, and the interaction between the two. Likewise, what we teach in schools about the subject of human origin is equally as important. In many regions of America, there is an ongoing controversy concerning the roles of the theory of evolution and the idea of creationism in our educational system. Does evolution have scientific flaws that compromise its validity? Is creationism a legitimate, alternative theory worth teaching? Exactly what sort of qualities should an idea have in order for it to be justified as being taught in a science class?

Those are definitely all questions that this blog is going to consider; however, the overall aim of this blog is to analyze the empirical and scientific backing of evolution and creationism, determine their overall scientific validity, and examine which one, if any, has a role in our American education system.

As a first-year student of a major research University of the United States, and as someone who has had a lot of first-time experience with both sides of the controversy, I understand the importance of the issue in our daily lives; what is at stake is more than just our individual beliefs and ideals, but the entire framework of which we place faith and science in our lives.